Violence in anarchism

[joeldavis]

Who is the superior and who is the inferior?

The mugger is superior for the time of the crime and possibly until the emotional effects wear off the victim. This is why muggers need coercion, they need you to accept your position s a subordinate willing to follow orders ("give me your money")

What are the commands?

"give me your money"

What power or wealth is being centralized?

Power over your life is being centralized into the hands of the mugger. That's where all the wealth you have on your person goes as well. The power is generalized as the subordination is complete.

[joeldavis]

The mugging does not create an authority, it creates a crime, a violation of rights.

Does the gun in the back of your neck not constitute authority? Would you say the state has no authority over you? That's basically what they're doing. It seems you can't argue against the authority of the mugger without also arguing against the authority of collectivized muggers. The only difference between the two is the guy on the street corner can't sustain his hierarchy for fear of outside intervention, whereas the state's hierarchy is more secure.

[Mike Gogulski]

The mugging does not create an authority, it creates a crime, a violation of rights.

Does the gun in the back of your neck not constitute authority?

No. It constitutes a crime.

Would you say the state has no authority over you? That's basically what they're doing. It seems you can't argue against the authority of the mugger without also arguing against the authority of collectivized muggers. The only difference between the two is the guy on the street corner can't sustain his hierarchy for fear of outside intervention, whereas the state's hierarchy is more secure.

I yield no authority to the state. That the state elects to mobilize its considerable resources to justify its alleged authority in contravention of my interests or yours is not in dispute. The state commits crimes against me continuously, as it does against you, and millions cheer its depredations. Its agents then claim, based on this support, that it is legitimate.

This is hierarchy, and a species of which we both rightly oppose.

[Francois Tremblay]

How is a mugging the creation of a hierarchy? Who is the superior and who is the inferior? What are the commands? What power or wealth is being centralized?

And this is yet another useful perspective on the question. There needn't be a hierarchy to recognize a crime.

I'm curious, though, Francois, to know how you might respond to my rebuttal against pacifism above. I had a variant of this argument with a committed statist this evening, and I'd be grateful for friendlier thinking! (not that you owe anyone such, of course!)

I don't know why you think I am a pacifist. I am not a pacifist, I am anti-war. There's a big difference.

[Francois Tremblay]

The mugger is superior for the time of the crime and possibly until the emotional effects wear off the victim. This is why muggers need coercion, they need you to accept your position s a subordinate willing to follow orders ("give me your money")

Superiors do not need violence in order to issue orders. They are obeyed because we all believe in the system of obedience.

"give me your money"

If it's a command, then why must it be enforced with a gun?

Power over your life is being centralized into the hands of the mugger. That's where all the wealth you have on your person goes as well. The power is generalized as the subordination is complete.

What does "the power is generalized" mean?

[Mike Gogulski]

How is a mugging the creation of a hierarchy? Who is the superior and who is the inferior? What are the commands? What power or wealth is being centralized?

And this is yet another useful perspective on the question. There needn't be a hierarchy to recognize a crime.

I'm curious, though, Francois, to know how you might respond to my rebuttal against pacifism above. I had a variant of this argument with a committed statist this evening, and I'd be grateful for friendlier thinking! (not that you owe anyone such, of course!)

I don't know why you think I am a pacifist. I am not a pacifist, I am anti-war. There's a big difference.

Your post above suggested to me at least quite strongly that you oppose violence on some fundamental principle. To me that looked like pacifism, and you didn't mention war or any situation which might be likened to war.

[joeldavis]

The mugger is superior for the time of the crime and possibly until the emotional effects wear off the victim. This is why muggers need coercion, they need you to accept your position s a subordinate willing to follow orders ("give me your money")

Superiors do not need violence in order to issue orders. They are obeyed because we all believe in the system of obedience.

In elected hierarchy maybe, or in very codependent people. I doubt many peasants believed in feudalism but we'd still call that a very hierarchical society.

What does "the power is generalized" mean?

Err, ok apparently I had a stroke or something as I tried to write that last sentence. I meant that basically the mugger can in theory order the subordinate to do whatever they want, which may or may not be limited to just money and valuable materials.

[joeldavis]

No. It constitutes a crime.

But my point is that in addition to it being called a "crime" by social norms, it is only capable of being such by first subduing and subordinating the other person to the "superior's" interests. If you take the hierarchy away you lose the crucial attribute that makes it a "crime."

The point of all this is if anarchists oppose illegitimate hierarchy (and most of it is) then anarchists will have to oppose violence since it involves the subordination of someone else to the aggressor's (supposedly virtuous) desires. Take the subordination away, you make it compliant with anarchism, but you also have to take the violence itself away. Ergo: no violence in a state of anarchy can exist.

[Francois Tremblay]

But the power is not centralized. It only lasts for as long as the mugging lasts, then it is dissipated, except for the wealth stolen. As for your answer on the orders, I don't really understand your point. What do elected hierarchies or a very co-dependent person have to do with it?

[Francois Tremblay]

If no violence can exist, then we're talking about pacifism. You are saying that Anarchy must necessarily be pacifistic. If I really did believe that this was the natural conclusion, then I couldn't be an Anarchist, because I don't think a large-scale pacifistic organization can exist.

However, I don't think that a crime such as mugging implies the existence of a hierarchy, and therefore breaks that specific rule.

[joeldavis]

But the power is not centralized.

I don't really think the centralization of power (depending on how you mean "centralize") is needed for hierarchy. At any rate, I would say there is a transfer of power going on since at that point the mugger has put himself not only in charge of his own life, but of his victim's as well.

It only lasts for as long as the mugging lasts, then it is dissipated, except for the wealth stolen.

Then it's a temporary hierarchy, but that doesn't change it's social form.

As for your answer on the orders, I don't really understand your point. What do elected hierarchies or a very co-dependent person have to do with it?

Well I was just saying that orders may be followed from the "superior" in the absence of actual coercion if the person is the "dependent" in an emotionally destructive relationship or if it's seen as part of a moral social condition (where administration is "just another job" according to malatesta.) But I think violence is another way of creating hierarchy and we needn't limit ourselves to consensual hierarchies when we discuss them.

You are saying that Anarchy must necessarily be pacifistic.

No, I'm just trying to point out that if one is hoping to establish (or at least encourage) a non-hierarchical society, then using violence to do it is sort of like trying to put a fire out with a blowtorch. I think most reasonable anarchists would add "when feasible" onto their rejection of hierarchy (which is why most anarchists aren't primitivists and/or extreme individualists.)

If one is an anarchist, then I fell they should try all non-violent means of resolving disputes (including just cutting their losses) before trying to resort to violence because it recreates that master/slave role. Sometimes you just have to, like in self-defense, but it becomes a necessary evil at that point.

[Mike Gogulski]

Joel,

Thanks for this last response. I very much like the idea that we ought to try and find non-violent solutions wherever possible, and create them where absent. Your addition of the "when feasible" proviso is consistent with (my definition of) liberty.

I will continue to nitpick two points, though. I suspect that you will be more agreeable with the first than the second, and I'd be interested to know why.

First, the violence employed in self-defense is not a "necessary evil" -- it is not evil at all, in fact, but a justified, legitimate response to the violation of oneself. My idealism tells me that we ought to strive to purge all evil from our midst and from our actions. If I designate violence in self-defense as an evil that is also necessary, then I can't help but be a hypocrite in that regard. One may of course profess that violence is an absolute evil, and that I am merely shifting definitions to preserve my integrity. Our discussion of the topic of violence in anarchism would effectively end at that point, if you or Francois were such who made that profession. I am glad to see that we continue!

Second, I would suggest that hierarchy and authority effectively require for their existence that there be a broader social context in which the individual acts ascribed thereto are judged. Smith may mug Jones far off in the woods where nobody sees him. No hierarchy is created, and no authority is exercised. Smith still commits a crime by doing so, as he violates the rights of Jones. Now, if Smith and Jones instead carry out their interaction in the village and it is witnessed by many and then discussed and analyzed later on, AND IF that discussion and analysis results in a consensus that Smith's victimization of Jones was legitimate, morally acceptable, justified, etc., then I believe that hierarchy has been established and that the exercise of authority is plainly visible. If such a consensus was reached int that village, then I believe that you and I and almost any other anarchist would at least join in unanimously denouncing the evil embedded in the villagers' lending authority to Smith's crime.

Cheers

[Francois Tremblay]

I agree with most (if not all) of what Mike said in his last post. As for joel's reply...

I don't really think the centralization of power (depending on how you mean "centralize") is needed for hierarchy.

Yet I don't think it can be denied to be one of its central attributes and cause of its most destructive effects.

Then it's a temporary hierarchy, but that doesn't change it's social form.

This seems to be the difference between our views. You think a hierarchy can be formed and dissipate in a matter of seconds. I don't think that can really happen, because most of the properties and effects of a hierarchy take effect over time.


[/quote]Well I was just saying that orders may be followed from the "superior" in the absence of actual coercion if the person is the "dependent" in an emotionally destructive relationship or if it's seen as part of a moral social condition (where administration is "just another job" according to malatesta.)[/quote]

Everyone follows orders because no one takes moral responsibility for their actions.

No, I'm just trying to point out that if one is hoping to establish (or at least encourage) a non-hierarchical society, then using violence to do it is sort of like trying to put a fire out with a blowtorch.

Yes, of course. But you seemed to be saying that ALL violence is hierarchical. That was my problem.

I think most reasonable anarchists would add "when feasible" onto their rejection of hierarchy (which is why most anarchists aren't primitivists and/or extreme individualists.)

Then I'm afraid I don't count as a "reasonable" Anarchist.

Sometimes you just have to, like in self-defense, but it becomes a necessary evil at that point.

There is no such thing as a "necessary evil." Necessary implies that no other course of action can be taken. Evil implies acting counter to our values. But there is always a way to act in accordance with our values. Good actions are always available to us.

[Yarrow]

personally i'm happy to accept authority, as long as it's my choice who that authority is.

[joeldavis]

First, the violence employed in self-defense is not a "necessary evil" -- it is not evil at all, in fact, but a justified, legitimate response to the violation of oneself. My idealism tells me that we ought to strive to purge all evil from our midst and from our actions.

I take a more ying-yang approach to evil and I've given up on trying to obliterate it and instead marginalize it. The only pure anarchists were the old french individualists or the modern primitivists. They rejected ALL organizations, even democratically-ran ones (the idea was that there was a hierarchy established there with the collective sovereign over the individual.) I stand by statement that violence is hierarchical, but I defend self-defense the same way I defend modern industry from primivist/extreme individualism, that rejection of violence at any time any place will lead to worse outcomes. (Like: "No reprisals? I guess I'll just live a life of a roving bandit." or "That thief took the last of our medicine, now the baby's dying." or in other words "not temporarily subordinating the thief may cause me to act as an enabler of immorality.") Whether or not there's a higher moral principle to be followed, it doesn't change the fact that if you're hoping to get people to (in general) treat each other as peers rather than rungs on a ladder, then you're going to have to find something other than violence to deal with your problems.

Smith may mug Jones far off in the woods where nobody sees him. No hierarchy is created, and no authority is exercised. Smith still commits a crime by doing so, as he violates the rights of Jones.

Well I think I know roughly where the disagreement on this point is, I think there was the idea that hierarchy requires a many subordinates to one master relationship. I would say hierarchy can exist between just two people. The mugging is a crime, even in the remote woodlands. You can own only one slave, but there's still a hierarchy between you and your slave.


and now for francois...

This seems to be the difference between our views. You think a hierarchy can be formed and dissipate in a matter of seconds. I don't think that can really happen, because most of the properties and effects of a hierarchy take effect over time.

Well because time doesn't (for me) really play into whether or not a hierarchy exists. If someone gets mugged everyday, does it matter if it's a different mugger everytime. Furthermore, does a feudal state constantly and without interruption subordinate its citizens? I wouldn't say so, but subordination does go on, and subordination is always a component of a hierarchy, it can't exist outside of one.

Yes, of course. But you seemed to be saying that ALL violence is hierarchical. That was my problem.

And it is, if you fight off a murderer, I'd say you were justified in doing so, but it doesn't change the fact that you had to subordinate him first. If you violently recover stolen goods, you must first subordinate the thief in order to take them back.

Then I'm afraid I don't count as a "reasonable" Anarchist.

No, I feel you do, I think this is more a disagreement of perception more than principle.

There is no such thing as a "necessary evil." Necessary implies that no other course of action can be taken. Evil implies acting counter to our values. But there is always a way to act in accordance with our values. Good actions are always available to us.

But no matter how carefully you construct your value system, there are always going to be times when you must obey one principle over another (i.e: 'How do I do no harm yet protect my family yet uphold my ideal of 'do no harm' ?")